“`html
The destiny of the Line 5 pipeline is presently at a significant turning point in its over 70-year saga. This conduit transports upwards of 500,000 barrels of oil products each day across the Great Lakes region from Wisconsin into Canada, following a route that traverses the bed of the Straits of Mackinac.
Throughout its existence, the pipeline has experienced more than 30 leaks, discharging over 1 million gallons of oil. A 2016 study from the University of Michigan indicated that upwards of 700 miles of shoreline in the Great Lakes could be jeopardized in the event of a failure in the straits.
Enbridge, the Canadian firm managing the pipeline, has suggested constructing a tunnel beneath the straits to safeguard the pipeline and maintain its functionality. The Trump administration, having issued an executive directive labeling a national energy crisis, has tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with expediting its environmental impact assessment of this proposal.
The Corps of Engineers anticipates unveiling its draft Environmental Impact Statement by May 30, which could set the stage for Enbridge to advance after a 30-day public input period, albeit not without dissent.
This hurried timetable does not allow sufficient time for a thorough environmental evaluation, and while entombing the pipeline may lessen the chance of it being struck by an anchor again, it raises additional issues, according to experts.
Andrew Buchsbaum, a lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School, is open to discussing various facets of this controversial situation. He is knowledgeable in the areas of the Great Lakes and environmental jurisprudence. Prior to joining U-M, he held leadership positions with the National Wildlife Federation, co-established the Healing Our Waters coalition, and served as an attorney for the National Environmental Law Center.
What is the present status of the Line 5 pipeline?
Line 5 is 72 years old, transporting 23 million gallons daily—primarily Canadian oil—and it runs along the bed of the Straits of Mackinac, additionally traversing exceptionally sensitive and pristine terrains on a Native American reservation. It operates to deliver this Canadian crude to mainly Canadian destinations, which implies that Michigan and the Great Lakes incur most of the risks while reaping minimal benefits.
This pipeline through the straits is enormous and it has never been replaced. It is encrusted with zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and other debris. Its protective sheathing has deteriorated. It has been impacted by anchors on two occasions in the past six years—one incident caused a dent and another displaced it by ten feet. This pipeline represents a considerable hazard to the Great Lakes. Researchers from the University of Michigan have determined it’s situated in the most precarious location for any pipeline within the Great Lakes.
In what way would placing the pipeline in a tunnel beneath the straits alter its risk profile?
Enbridge plans to transport all 23 million gallons daily 50 to 200 feet beneath the base of the Straits of Mackinac—that is, beneath the lakebed for its protection against anchor strikes. The issue with this approach is that the tunnel itself would pose a substantial risk to the Great Lakes. They propose a tunnel 21 feet in diameter that would contain ample air for personnel to access the pipeline for maintenance. However, if any minuscule leak occurs that allows natural gas liquids or oil vapors to escape into an enclosed area, the presence of a spark could lead to a catastrophic explosion hazard.
Additionally, the geological conditions that the pipeline is expected to traverse are of dubious quality. This creates numerous possibilities for connection to the Great Lakes. In fact, a significant influx of groundwater from surrounding regions or an explosion could result in visible subsidence of the Great Lakes’ bottomland, potentially causing a sinkhole to open up at the lake’s base, leading to a proverbial “jumping from the frying pan into the fire” scenario with this solution.
What are the consequences of expediting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ evaluation?
The expedited notices that have emerged suggest potential alterations to the timeline, resulting in reduced public scrutiny and less scientific examination. The draft environmental impact statement is to be released on May 30, allowing merely 30 days for public feedback. Reports indicate that the Corps anticipates finalizing the EIS in the autumn. This timeframe is overly abbreviated for public response to what is likely to be a lengthy and technical document, suggesting that the Corps is unlikely to factor in public input—that this process is a façade and that the Corps has already reached its conclusion.
On the whole, the evaluation of the feasibility, viability, and dangers associated with constructing the tunnel has been inadequate thus far. Questions about how a tunnel can be safely excavated through porous rock remain unresolved. There exist actual voids in the rock, which would necessitate filling with grout concrete, a challenging task when attempting this 50 to 250 feet beneath the lake bed. The potential explosion risk has yet to be thoroughly assessed—those inquiries remain open-ended.
Some data and studies have been conducted. The state has engaged consultants to analyze Enbridge’s proposals, and those state consultants have clearly stated there’s inadequate research concerning the rock quality. Enbridge has not conducted borings to ascertain whether the tunnel would pass through solid or porous rock. There exists significant uncertainty regarding the viability of constructing the tunnel, and once built, questions linger about its safety.
The expedited approach with the Army Corps of Engineers means that the federal government is not going to address these critical questions, or if they do, they will lack the necessary data or research to make informed decisions.
“““html
being capable of ascertaining how to respond to them. This signifies that the federal government is prepared to delegate to the state of Michigan all the considerable efforts regarding whether this initiative will succeed. It also indicates that the federal government is willing to regard the Great Lakes as a testing ground. If you lack the information and proceed regardless, you are effectively stating, “We’re uncertain if it will succeed. Let’s observe.”
The repercussions of failure would be disastrous for the Great Lakes, Michigan, the surrounding area, and all 40 million individuals who rely on the Great Lakes for potable water and their quality of life.
What are the reasons for maintaining Line 5’s operations?
At the core of this matter is the question of what the alternative is if a tunnel is not constructed. If you halt the transmission of 23 million gallons daily of oil and natural gas liquids through Line 5 due to its risks to the Great Lakes, then what occurs? Are there shortages? Are prices increasing? Is there unemployment? The response is no. There exist alternatives aside from Line 5, yet the narrative propagated by Enbridge, Canada, and others suggests that there would be catastrophic consequences if Line 5 were terminated. This is simply not accurate.
The Bad River Band case in Wisconsin featured a trial where this was emphasized, followed by a study conducted by an independent consulting firm, PLG Consulting. Both sources concluded that nearly every barrel of oil currently supplied by Line 5 could be substituted by the market through different sources within three months. Furthermore, every barrel, not just almost all, would be replaced within 18 months via other pipelines, rail, and particularly marine transport from the Gulf of Mexico to Montreal. We recognize that this is achievable because, prior to 2015, that was indeed the situation. This point is incredibly crucial as it demonstrates that prices will not escalate.
In fact, Enbridge’s own specialists in the trial acknowledged that gasoline prices in the U.S., if Line 5 were to cease operations tomorrow, would increase by only half a penny to a penny per gallon. Refineries would continue to receive the same oil as before, therefore jobs would not be lost, and the energy supply would remain stable. Thus, contrary to the narrative constructed by Enbridge and Canada, discontinuing Line 5 is essentially closing a superfluous pipeline. We do not require that oil, nor do we need those natural gas liquids.
Associated stories:
Line 5 and climate change: ‘We do not have an energy crisis. We have a determination crisis.’
Line 5 and American Indian law: ‘It’s genuinely quite Orwellian.’
Line 5 and its narrative in Michigan: ‘It’s experienced more twists and turns than a Russian spy novel.’
“`